GTA IV PC will not work on a 64-bit O/S

[consulweyer]

It runs perfect on Pc

just make sure you have

 

* Service Pack 2

* .NET 3.5

* Windows Media Encoder 9 Series x64 Edition (Check the readme)

 

there was already one topic with this question.

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=379063

 

[GTA_XP]

I guess this means... x64 is not supported?

 

x64 is garbage anyway just throw it out. I bought it but dont use it.

Why is x64 garbage?

x64 is stable on my rig and it works.

So why on the box is there "optimized for 64bit"?

[Th3 ProphetMan]

I guess this means... x64 is not supported?

 

x64 is garbage anyway just throw it out. I bought it but dont use it.

Why is x64 garbage?

x64 is stable on my rig and it works.

So why on the box is there "optimized for 64bit"?

Forget about what the box says

 

64bits OS are not crap, but that doesnt mean the game has to be smoother on them

[CharmingCharlie]

since uthead9 thread relates to installing the game on 64bit and there are already a fair few replies I have merged the topic with this one.

[bp2018]

It likely has "optimised for 64bit" on the box due to games for windows live support which REQUIRES it to function on 64bit and 32bit, it isn't really optimised, it just simply RUNS on 64 bit.

[villin]

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

[Stickymaddness]

XP x64 is pretty much Windows Server 2003 x64 and it runs like a dream.

 

GTA IV runs pretty decently for me on XP x64 and I haven't had any issues.

[mupet0000]

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

Lol.

 

You're living in the past. I switched from vista 32bit to vista 64bit and everything I have tried is supported. 32bit apps work perfectly fine, I never have any issues, it's faster and it lets me use more ram. I find no limitation to using 64bit other than maybe if i wanted to use a printer/scanner from 5 years ago (which I don't). 64bit needs 64bit drivers - thats the only "limitation". All new hardware has 64 bit drivers.

[villin]

 

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

Lol.

 

You're living in the past. I switched from vista 32bit to vista 64bit and everything I have tried is supported. 32bit apps work perfectly fine, I never have any issues, it's faster and it lets me use more ram. I find no limitation to using 64bit other than maybe if i wanted to use a printer/scanner from 5 years ago (which I don't). 64bit needs 64bit drivers - thats the only "limitation". All new hardware has 64 bit drivers.

Ok.. go back and re-read my post.

 

 

Vista 64 is not what i was talking about. thats fine... you're right.

 

 

XP x64 is what i was referring to. sorry if anyone was confused.

 

 

there are usually drivers available... but often there may not be for xp x64. xp x64 also has functionality removed from xp 32bit such as legacy gameports and other things which I happen to like.

[mupet0000]

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

Lol.

 

You're living in the past. I switched from vista 32bit to vista 64bit and everything I have tried is supported. 32bit apps work perfectly fine, I never have any issues, it's faster and it lets me use more ram. I find no limitation to using 64bit other than maybe if i wanted to use a printer/scanner from 5 years ago (which I don't). 64bit needs 64bit drivers - thats the only "limitation". All new hardware has 64 bit drivers.

Ok.. go back and re-read my post.

 

 

Vista 64 is not what i was talking about. thats fine... you're right.

 

 

XP x64 is what i was referring to. sorry if anyone was confused.

 

 

there are usually drivers available... but often there may not be for xp x64. xp x64 also has functionality removed from xp 32bit such as legacy gameports and other things which I happen to like.

Ok I also don't like the x64 version of XP.

[villin]

ya sorry for the confusion. I responded to another thread that was merged with this one that was talking about xp x64. so it made sense in the context of that thread.

[DIRTYDUNKY]

 

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

this would be true... if it was still 2005

ive been running 64 xp pro for a long time

i saw at the least a 200% performance increase

 

at first drivers were scarce but thats almost a non-issue these days

99% of things work with it now... in 2009

GTAIV IS NOT an exception

 

the DRASTIC improvement over 32 bit xp is worth the very slight chance something wont work in 64

 

itunes gives you an annoying incompatibility message b4 it boots, you click "OK" and it runs just fine

thats about the worst ive seen lately

 

vista is crap

dont tell me otherwise or no1 would still be selling new PC's with the downgrade option, if i was forced to id get ultimate 64

but im trying to hold out till windows 7 sp1 before i switch over to anything else (make sure nothing goes wrong with that microflop product before i commit)

Edited January 18, 2009 by DIRTYDUNKY

[villin]

200% performance increase? I dunno about that. maybe I'll try it though... i have a copy lying around. i ditched it because of hardware incompatability

[ZaCkOX]

 

It does work on Vista Ultimate x64. No wonder it doesn't work on XP x64, it's a piece of sh*t with no support.

No the POS is Vista. I use XP X64, and own a distributor license for SP2C(the last released package.) A fresh XP install blows the doors off of a heavily configured/optimized Vista system, and has the exact same security architecture in the form of group policies and data execution prevention/stack protection; as well as signed kernel code filter. I can run advanced system care beta, configuring services etc, and get XP using less than 100MB physical RAM on average, and almost never any page file/virtual RAM. That's not actually disabling any interface functionality too- just like wireless zero config and some file system stuff.

 

I was given a free license for Vista Ultra, and it's been sitting on a shelf for years now because it sucked so much when I tried it.

 

While I'm at it I'd like to debunk two popular claims by Best Buy grade geeks:

1. Rootkit researchers can/have loaded unsigned drivers/kernel code on updated XP and Vista systems. They can be hooked and injected from user land still too.

 

2. Virtualization isn't limited to Vista, AMD-V and Intel-VT can be disabled in a BIOS though(it actually prevents ring -1 malicous code.) There are not many solutions outside security and virtual machines that use it currently.

I don't understand why Bluesman responded with such bullsh*t to you. He obviously doesn't know as much as you do. I read your post and found everything to be true, of course because I have been and done that too.

 

 

You're an idiot. Vista is superior in any way compared to that old piece of sh*t XP. XP is 8 years old for christ sake! Move on. XP doesn't handle dual and quad cores as well as vista, it doesn't have DX10, it utilizes free RAM memory in a very smart way, it looks about a million times better, and it is much less safe/hacker proof. These are all facts that can't be denied. If you think Vista sucks, it's because:

 

1) you're too dumb to figure out to use it properly

2) your computer is a piece of sh*t

3) both 1 and 2 at the same time (probably you)

 

Quick read through I could tell Bluesman doesn't even know Vista. Facts? It is not more safe/hacker proof. XP does handle dual and quad cores. Not to mention compare fresh install Vista and XP will always out speed it. Bluesman, let's replace "You're an idiot." with to you <-.

 

Of course there is a lot more pros to using XP than using Vista. If you believe otherwise then you aren't a techy. Looking fancy has nothing to do with "being able to do everyday tasks".

 

Bluesman - "I am an idiot."

[eye776]

GTA IV installs and works fine under XP-64. Just get the latest drivers.

 

If you really like the improvements vista brings, install Windows 7 beta 64-bit. It is faster and less bloated than vista.

The GDI/Aero/WinFX/"Whatever the new drwaing api is called nowadays" has most probably been heavily optimized this time around.

[ppehrson]

 

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

this would be true... if it was still 2005

ive been running 64 xp pro for a long time

i saw at the least a 200% performance increase

 

at first drivers were scarce but thats almost a non-issue these days

99% of things work with it now... in 2009

GTAIV IS NOT an exception

 

the DRASTIC improvement over 32 bit xp is worth the very slight chance something wont work in 64

 

itunes gives you an annoying incompatibility message b4 it boots, you click "OK" and it runs just fine

thats about the worst ive seen lately

 

vista is crap

dont tell me otherwise or no1 would still be selling new PC's with the downgrade option, if i was forced to id get ultimate 64

but im trying to hold out till windows 7 sp1 before i switch over to anything else (make sure nothing goes wrong with that microflop product before i commit)

Vista is actually faster than XP, and Windows 7 is a bit faster than Vista, although it is basically the same. It's optimized.

 

GTA 4 runs great on Win7 64 bit. It didn't run so great on (my) Clean Install Vista 32. Nor XP Clean Install, Not even half the speed.

So... if you really want good speed get Windows 7 x64. And uuh, you can only install the Steam version as Rockstar's installer is not prepared for Windows 7! (WOOT)

[ZaCkOX]

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

this would be true... if it was still 2005

ive been running 64 xp pro for a long time

i saw at the least a 200% performance increase

 

at first drivers were scarce but thats almost a non-issue these days

99% of things work with it now... in 2009

GTAIV IS NOT an exception

 

the DRASTIC improvement over 32 bit xp is worth the very slight chance something wont work in 64

 

itunes gives you an annoying incompatibility message b4 it boots, you click "OK" and it runs just fine

thats about the worst ive seen lately

 

vista is crap

dont tell me otherwise or no1 would still be selling new PC's with the downgrade option, if i was forced to id get ultimate 64

but im trying to hold out till windows 7 sp1 before i switch over to anything else (make sure nothing goes wrong with that microflop product before i commit)

Vista is actually faster than XP, and Windows 7 is a bit faster than Vista, although it is basically the same. It's optimized.

 

GTA 4 runs great on Win7 64 bit. It didn't run so great on (my) Clean Install Vista 32. Nor XP Clean Install, Not even half the speed.

So... if you really want good speed get Windows 7 x64. And uuh, you can only install the Steam version as Rockstar's installer is not prepared for Windows 7! (WOOT)

How is Vista faster? Look at a lot of benchmarks. And I have had to downgrade to XP for a lot of clients. XP alone showed it was WAY faster than VISTA, didn't matter the hardware. People claimed left and right it was faster than XP, but any computer I downgraded with XP can easily prove it didn't. Vista requires a lot more specs, and you're still going to believe it's faster? Something that requires less specs, and has less bloat ware will run faster. -> XP.

 

When are techies going to stop reading and do the work?

[villin]

vista is not "faster than xp"

 

maybe your computer had a better configuration of drivers and settings under vista, so games appeare to work better. But Vista itself is slow as a poke.

[DIRTYDUNKY]

 

vista is not "faster than xp"

 

maybe your computer had a better configuration of drivers and settings under vista, so games appear to work better. But Vista itself is slow as a poke.

and when you turn off all the bells and whistles in vista youre basically left with - xp with dx10 support (which for GTAIV doenst matter)

if vista uses twice the resources xp does on the same machine at idle,

which is gonna run better under high stress?

 

xp is a great product

vista was a good idea gone horribly wrong

 

and bluesman learn your OS history

Vista went into development just as XP was released and stayed that way for 7 years

it was almost 4 years late when it was released

XP was supposed to be an inbetween OS until vista was ready and vista was supposed to be the main OS for the majority of this decade until 2010

but that didnt happen

 

another reason most of us following vistas development issues and woes knew not to touch it until at least SP1 and continue to hold out to this day

 

i look at Vista as the proverbial "polished turd"

[Stickymaddness]

i look at Vista as the proverbial "polished turd"

lmfao, QFT!

[ZaCkOX]

Haha, great!

[udedenkz]

 

x64 is garbage because there is virtually no support for it. If the choice was between xp 32 and xp 64 then 32 it is. If i was FORCED to use Vista i would use 64 bit.

 

x64 was a f*cking ripoff from MS. They used it to pre-develop for Vista 64 and used it for manufacturers to get used to a 64 bit MS os... but then they dumped it and now its uesless. You might be able to find a happy medium with it.. but sooner or later you will be limited by it, as I was.

 

64 bit os's are GREAT... MS os's are NOT.

this would be true... if it was still 2005

ive been running 64 xp pro for a long time

i saw at the least a 200% performance increase

 

at first drivers were scarce but thats almost a non-issue these days

99% of things work with it now... in 2009

GTAIV IS NOT an exception

 

the DRASTIC improvement over 32 bit xp is worth the very slight chance something wont work in 64

 

itunes gives you an annoying incompatibility message b4 it boots, you click "OK" and it runs just fine

thats about the worst ive seen lately

 

vista is crap

dont tell me otherwise or no1 would still be selling new PC's with the downgrade option, if i was forced to id get ultimate 64

but im trying to hold out till windows 7 sp1 before i switch over to anything else (make sure nothing goes wrong with that microflop product before i commit)

 

 

200% ? I am sorry but that is a common misconception although 64-bit is twice 32-bit allowing more advanced calculations - that does not by any means mean instant double performance, I would not got above 160% performance boost of 64-bit over 32-bit, although honestly it is more like 120-140% boost. Now on the other hand, 32-bit application performance might actually degrade by like a percent or two that OR increase b a few percent - but 32-bit apps do not really experience any advantage in a 64-bit environment for they are not 64-bit.

 

If you saw a 200% increase, this mean that your 32-bit Operating System was filled with crap, unoptimized, and not taken care of (FACT: The longer you use Windows the Slower It Runs unless you clean it, clean the registry, and defragment all the time). I seriously recommend taking care of your Windows.

 

Now for some Vista bashing,

Vista is by far worse than XP in performance department. Get back to me when you can make Vista run (with drivers, without safe mode, with internet) at 75MB with an install size less than 500MB as well as the ability to run games. Yes 75MB, although I managed to once get 56MB and 20MB in safe mode on my tweaked Setup that ran Bioshock...

Edited January 18, 2009 by udedenkz

[ZaCkOX]

 

Now for some Vista bashing,

Vista is by far worse than XP in performance department. Get back to me when you can make Vista run (with drivers, without safe mode, with internet) at 75MB with an install size less than 500MB as well as the ability to run games. Yes 75MB, although I managed to once get 56MB and 20MB in safe mode on my tweaked Setup that ran Bioshock...

I swear, the amount of laptops I have downgraded to XP, all my clients were happy to get rid of Vista. I had several that were just bought not even started and Vista took practically 10 minutes just doing configurations before even starting up. XP ever do that?

 

And yes I have seen a lot of other problems with Vista. I can write a nice book about it.

 

Let's bash it to the ends of the earth.

[bp2018]

Is this forum filled with uneducated twats?

 

No offence but that had to be said, anyway, 64bit is not faster than 32bit, it merely allows for more memory to be used, im sure in time 64bit will be much quicker but as it stands you're lucky if its 2% faster as 64bit coding allows for more memory to be used but at the same time requires more coding to be processed, or rather has larger process instruction sets.

 

As for Vista being slower, thats also wrong, Vista uses more ram because it is PROGRAMMED to do so, XP lets your ram sit there unused, complete waste of space, thus it simply thrashes the hard drive with system files, Vista on the other hand uses your ram instead, avoiding Hard drive thrashing.

 

Again sorry for the first line, but it had to be said, im sick of people saying "VISTA USES WAY MOAR REASOURCES, IT SUCKSZ1010!!;!!"

[DIRTYDUNKY]

 

Is this forum filled with uneducated twats?

 

No offence but that had to be said, anyway, 64bit is not faster than 32bit, it merely allows for more memory to be used, im sure in time 64bit will be much quicker but as it stands you're lucky if its 2% faster as 64bit coding allows for more memory to be used but at the same time requires more coding to be processed, or rather has larger process instruction sets.

 

As for Vista being slower, thats also wrong, Vista uses more ram because it is PROGRAMMED to do so, XP lets your ram sit there unused, complete waste of space, thus it simply thrashes the hard drive with system files, Vista on the other hand uses your ram instead, avoiding Hard drive thrashing.

 

Again sorry for the first line, but it had to be said, im sick of people saying "VISTA USES WAY MOAR REASOURCES, IT SUCKSZ1010!!;!!" sarcasm.gif

 

before i answer the quote

when i said 200% that was my observation switching from a clean install of 32 to 64

i do understand that the 32 and 64 bit numbers arent a reflection of speed

BUT 200% was the least improvement i saw

sometimes it seemed to be working 4X as fast as the old 32

this was an observation NOT a general assumption based on the chips names

 

which brings me to this dolt

64 IS MUCH FASTER THAN 32 (i know cause i use it, im sure that you dont or youd be spewing a different story)

32 bit thrashes a HD

64 doesnt as much

because 32 will swap files out of the page file more often that 64 causing the HD to thrash

that was one of the 1st things i noticed between the 2 os's a lot less hd noise

64 can use over 128 gigs of ram(xp and the more expensive versions of vista64)

 

so youre telling me an 8 bit OS, the only diff is the amount of ram you can install?

 

the large instruction sets youre talking about relate to programs running in the WOW64 emulation layer, yes the sets are larger but the other improvements in the way data is handled more than compensates for this

 

and youre telling me you feel more comfy looking at all your ram allocated rather than having 80% free for use at idle???? cmon IVE NEVER HEARD ANY1 SAY THAT lmao

1 gig of ram for vista64 vs i think with a clean install my xp64 is about 300 megs lol

75% of that 1 gig of system processes is for the visualizations lol FCK THAT! lol

if you turn all that off youre basically left with a more annoying version of XP64 lol

Edited January 19, 2009 by DIRTYDUNKY

[lezok]

Hi there, I'm not English speaking, so try to understand me ) thx

GTA IV works on 64bit Windows XP Service Pack2

Here is how to run game on 64bit XPSP2 (tested by myself)

 

1. Install game GTA IV on your system (XPSP2 64bit) (my version of GTA IV is Razor cracked)

2. Install all of components needed by the game (Visual c++ 2005, .Net 3.0-3.5SP1, Games For Windows Live, Flash Player, Windows Media Encoding x64)

3. Find somebody who running WinXPSP3 32bit OS and playing GTA IV and copy folder with all files (C:\Program Files\Rockstar Games) to your PC running XPSP2 64bit in folder C:\Program Files (x86)

4. Open folder C:\Program Files (x86)\Rockstar Games\Rockstar Games Social Club on your XPSP2 64bit and run RGSCLauncher.exe. You'll see Updating screen, then Licence agreement and then Original scren of Rockstar Game Social Club (like on XPSP3 32bit).

5. Click Play and game will start.

 

My conclusion:

The only thing that not working on XPSP2 64bit is RGSC installer on DVD with GTA IV game.

 

Enjoy your game )

 

 

p.s. I have all files from C:\Program Files (x86)\Rockstar Games\Rockstar Games Social Club, (1.88 Mb size), but don't know where to place them for you.

Edited November 20, 2009 by lezok

[Kyle F]

(my version of GTA IV is Razor cracked)

Well then, purchase the proper game then. GTAForums (GTANetwork) does NOT support cracked games, nor do we give support to those who own an illegal copy. it is copyright material, and you stole GTA IV. Your now a copyright stealer. And I'm sure the topic creator has already figured this out...

[Spider-Vice]

A tip: Report and don't post. That'll give people a chance to edit their posts.

[CharmingCharlie]

Why the hell do people feel the need to bump 10 month old topics ? Seriously never mind a cure for cancer or swine flu, I want scientists to come up with a viable hypothesis as to why the hell people have to bump 10 month old topics. Oh yeah and the guy that did this bump got a nice lil verbal for bumping and other things contained in his post.